Fox News' Beck still attacking stimulus bill over things he doesn't understand
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck again attacked the recovery act by citing a provision he did not understand. Beck stated that the final version of "[t]he spending bill, clean of earmarks, has ... $800 million for carbon capture projects." Meanwhile, on-screen text read: "$800M to Carbon Capture Project: What Is That?"
On February 25, echoing his previous attack on funds for carbon capture projects in an earlier version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Glenn Beck stated that the final version of "[t]he spending bill, clean of earmarks, has ... $800 million for carbon capture projects." Meanwhile, on-screen text read: "$800M to Carbon Capture Project: What Is That?"
Beck previously attacked an earlier version of the bill by citing a similar provision he said he did not understand. The final version of the bill appropriates $800 million for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) Round III Funding Opportunity Announcement, which, according to the agency that implements it, is "seeking to partner with industry to demonstrate the next generation of technologies to capture and sequester ... carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power generation facilities." Yet, as Media Matters for America previously noted, in June 2008, Beck criticized "liberals in Congress controlled by the radical environmental special interest groups" for "block[ing] clean coal technology."
From the Conference Report accompanying the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The conferees agree to provide an additional $3,400,000,000 for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, instead of $2,400,000,000 as proposed by the House and $4,600,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Funds under this heading include $1,000,000,000 for fossil energy research and development programs; $800,000,000 for additional amounts for the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III Funding Opportunity Announcement; $1,520,000,000 for a competitive solicitation for a range of industrial carbon capture and energy efficiency improvement projects, including a small allocation for innovative concepts for beneficial CO2 reuse; $50,000,000 for a competitive solicitation for site characterization activities in geologic formations; $20,000,000 for geologic sequestration training and research grants; and $10,000,000 for program direction funding.
According to the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), which is responsible for implementing the program, CCPI is "a 10-year, $2 billion program designed to support the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap milestones with the government providing up to 50 percent of the cost of demonstrating a range of promising technologies. CCPI is implemented through a series of five solicitations over the 10-year period, two of which have already been issued and selections made." For its third-round solicitations -- which the recovery act's funds are directed to -- NETL said it is "seeking to partner with industry to demonstrate the next generation of technologies to capture and sequester, or put to beneficial reuse, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power generation facilities:
The CCPI Round 3 is seeking applications for advanced coal-based projects that have progressed beyond the research and development stage, to a point of readiness for operation at a scale that, once demonstrated, can be readily replicated and deployed into commercial practice within the electric power industry.
According to this Announcement, DOE's goals are to demonstrate, at commercial scale, in a commercial setting, technologies that make significant progress toward the overall goals of DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program. Coal-based power technologies may produce heat, fuels, chemicals, hydrogen, or other useful by-products in any combination with production of electricity.
From the February 25 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: But [President] Obama isn't done yet. Ask yourself what's wrong with this next sentence.
OBAMA [video clip]: I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks.
BECK: I'm sorry -- didn't know you were coming back to me so soon. Wow. Wow. Maybe he's using a foreign-language dictionary there to define the word "earmarks," because I think that's the only way you could possibly think that statement was true.
The spending bill, clean of earmarks, has $2 billion for batteries in it, $800 million for carbon capture projects, and more than $3 million for new uniforms at the Transportation Security Administration -- you know, the airport cops. 'Cause they think that'll make them look more official. Mm-hmm. It's the uniform that's making me not listen to them.
Obama is playing word games.
I'm getting tired of Beck telling everyone what he doesn't know.
He should do us a favor and tell us everything he does know. That would be a very short show.
I imagine it'll be filled with valuable information such as which household cleaning products you can get drunk off of, and how to get a hooker in Atlantic City.
Seems to be the newest technique.It's not just the trolls here with their "lol"s and "I'm laughing so hard I can't breath" and "hahahahah"s, it's most of the conservative media.
They used to at least try to comprehend, and make up some plausible horsesh*t, but when I turn on Fox or the am radio now, what I mostly hear is "ha ha! what does that mean?" or "I don't even understand this!"
And that tells the audience that they don't need to try either.
Heck, if beck doesn't understand, maybe he should shut his trap long enough to read it before he comments on it. He can read, right?
Beck can read???
Good observation Col.
For the last eight years the right has been ridiculing intelligence. Now they've gone beyond that to proclaim that ignorance is what it's all about.
I'm pretty sure that evolution is being reversed.
What gets me is the pride these morons show.
I remember somebody saying "It's like they take pride in being ignorant". I watched Idiocracy again on cable recently, and found it less far-fetched than the first time I saw it. Hopefully, the footage I saw of CPAC tonight is a reassuring sign (sparse attendanece and Joe the Make-believe Plumber as a speaker).
Off topic, but I saw one of the funniest bits ever on the BilldO Factor tonight; Warning his T-Warriors that they may be getting misinformation from the mainstream media, he was selling the diversity of opinion that Fox offers, naming himself, Hannity, Glenn Beck and Alan Colmes as four points on the Fair & balanced spectrum.
Three GOP shills and a milquetoast lib who left the station a while ago. Outstanding satire, BilldO!
For a "self-educated" man, Glenn is up for a refresher course. Why is this idiot even ON television? He is so clueless and ignorant about the most elementary subjects. He is the perfect example of the UN-educated moron sitting in the last chair in the barber shop reading the newspaper upside down. Even the dumbest guys in the room roll their eyes and chuckle at his drooling tirades. He and so many other "comedians" on Fox wear their stupidity with pride. After all, consider the enormous salaries they are getting. Stupid sells!
3 million for new uniforms at the Transportation Security Administration -- you know, the airport cops. 'Cause they think that'll make them look more official. Mm-hmm. It's the uniform that's making me not listen to them.
So Beck is suggesting that even if TSA gets new uniforms...he is STILL not going to listen to them.
Volumes could be written about what Beck doesn't know.
Volumes HAVE been written...and Beck still hasn't read any of them. That's the problem. Put him in the same class with Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber...
GLENN BECK ,O'REILLY,MATTHEWS,HANNITY, BUCHANAN LIMBAUGH ETC ETC ETC ARE ENTERTAINERS AND SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AS SUCH. THERE RATINGS ARE THE BOTTOM LINE SO ITS SHOW BUSINESS. eg (YOU WONT WANT TO MISS THIS STORY) AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW NO ONE HAS BUT US) (BODY LANGUAGE READERS)(I HOPE THIS PRESIDENT FAILS). LOOK AT THE FEMALE HOST. SHORT SKIRTS REVEALING DRESSES SEXY HAIRDOS FORMER MISS AMERICA'S AS HOST. MOST GUYS MUST WATCH JUST FOR THAT. I DO IT MYSELF AS AN ENTERTAINMENT FORM BUT NOT FOR THE COMMENTARY. IF YOU WATCH SOMEONE FROM THE LEFT ONE NIGHT WATCH SOMEONE FROM THE RIGHT THE NEXT NIGHT . HAVE AN OPEN MIND DONT BE BRAINWASHED BY EITHER SIDE.SOME OF THESE PEOPLE YOUR WATCHING EVALUATE THE NEWS ARE MAKING IT AT THE SAME TIME AND ARE MAKING MILLIONS. SO ITS IN THERE INTEREST TO STIR THE POT. IF YOU GO BY THE RATINGS FOX IS HAS A STABLE OF SUPERSTARS. FOR THAT I GIVE THEM CREDIT AS ENTERTAINERS NOT ECONOMIST OR JUDGES OF POLICY MATTERS IN ANY FORM. ONE SHOW I FIND ENGAGING IS THE {BELTWAY BOYS.} ITS REAL ITS FROM MEN WHO KNOW THE SYSTEM AND THEY DEBATE IT IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER AS GENTLEMEN JOSEPH CAPRIO/CITYLIFEPRODUCTIONS.
9
Dude, the key is called "Caps Lock." Figuring out what it does isn't very hard.
Uh-huh. They're just "entertainers". That's why millions of people follow everything they do. And PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE don't lump Pat Buchanan in with those guys. He has actual integrity. But turn off the caps lock, dude. It's 2009. Most people know how to talk with their computers now. It makes you read like The Ultimate Warrior. ASSUME THE CONTROLS!....HULK...HOGAN...THE TOWER SHALL FALL...HULK...HOGAN...
Pat Buchanan is a sane voice in the conservative wasteland.
The money will be wasted since man-made climate change is a hoax.
Your evidence-based thought processes are overwhelming! We all bow down in subjugation to your overwhelming logic, Oh Mighty One.
I can tell that you are far more knowlegeable than the the scientists who worked on the IPCC report.
Climate change is a liberal agenda having nothing to do with so-called man made global warming. These same cooks said we were on our way to an ice age in the 60's and 70's.
Same scientists...? Same data...? Same peer-reviewed studies...? Hmmmmm...I doubt if you can back that up. You sound as though you like to make dramatic but unsubstantiated attacks....you sound like a Republican.
It's kooks, not cooks.
And it is, of course, also untrue. Apples and oranges.
Maybe he's getting his info. from his co-workers at Denny's. They may be going into the walk-in fridge pretty often and observing cool temperatures.
And here it is. The easily debunked "global cooling myth". Do you guys have any argument that hasn't conclusively been proven false a thousand times over? And that's a serious question. I'm really rooting for you guys over here. You're like the Washington Generals. Loveable losers.
WARNING! Factual data with verified sources ahead!
Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.).
This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered.
Answer: Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:
You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:
But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:
Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely.
A bunch of kooks, obviously.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm analyzing a business plan for a company that sees a direct relationship between CFCs (chloro fluorocarbons) and climate change and is sequestering said materials.
i don't mean to push you off your soap box here snoopdog but i don't think your being completely honest. most conservatives (not republicans) will concede that the planet is in a warming trend. the issue is do we with our 4% addition to green house gas really believe that this is our fault. i guess in our liberal progressive schools we no longer teach about the black blizzard and drouts of the 30's. the amount of erogance we have as a society astounds me, and i pitty the future if we continue to argue these points not being totally honest with on another. especially on these blogs away from mass media interferance. i think we owe it to each other at very least.
Your statement is a little unclear so I am assuming your 4% figure is supposed to be America's contribution, correct? If that's what you're inferring, what liberal is saying it is solely America's fault? If you are inferring something else, please provide a little more detail, because I believe 4% is the number scientists want to reduce by everywhere.
actually that number is the accepted % of total man made green house effect of the world. i'm looking through my things to give you my source hold please
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html if you look through this you'll notice that anywhere between 3% and 5% seems to be the conclusion here sorry i chose the middle ground here
Don't be sorry, you took the time to look into it for yourself. I enjoy seeing folks like yourself post here, I wish there were more like yourself.
Water vapor is a good point. The sources I have followed responds to that issue as follows:
Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.
Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.
If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.
This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.
CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.
An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.
i actually agree with almost all you just said, i only used that % arguement in defense of yours. i would like to pose a ? to you though. i understand the ammount of time it takes to wok lower into the atmosphere, years or decades, thats relative to the source. but doesn't the fossil record show that with increased amounts of co2 flora thrived since they use co2 to breathe, isn't this if kept in some kind of control, don't get me wrong i do think the climate shift is real and relavent, but couldn't the enhanced co2 atmosphere be a good thing? i'm not mocking you just want your opinion.
That's a good question as well. CO2 is good for plants. My question would be how much CO2 can they process, and the next one is how many plants are needed to process what's there today? I know there's a lot of deforestation going on globally, so seems there has to be a break point, right?
I think you are slyly (no mocking either) pointing out that there is more than one factor at work here, and I agree with you. The top level discussions are limited to an is there/isn't there mentality like you pointed out. I would hope that when we discuss solutions that it's addressing emissions, development and deforestation.
just a side note, smog. Cities with lots of sidewalks and streets that are nestled in valleys could use a few more trees... ;
Actually, a lot more trees and greenery (and a lot less asphalt, concrete and rooftops.
so then we can agree that many forces are at work here, i do have to disagree about the amount that can be sustained with so much proof in the fossil records of much much higher levels than even is speculated that we may reach today. the earth always has and seems to have always been more than capable of ajusting herself in which ever way is needed. in our utter erogance we seem to forget that humans have been here a blink of an eye in comparison to the age of the earth.
Sure it is.
Carbon = something to do with environment = liberal stuff = worthy of ridicule.
Seriously, that's why he does it. Sad.
I think Beck's plan is to take all the carbon in the footprints and have Superman squeeze it all into diamonds, and then the world will be rich, RICH, I tell you!
Can anyone explain what's so bad about "earmarks" by the way? I never understood it, I hear politicians of all stripes, Obama and McCain for example, rail against them, but I can't figure out what is so bad about designating money for certain projects.
Enlighten me, anyone?
earmarks are designated specific to the legislator who set it aside typically for their congressional districts or special interests projects within their home states or districts. they are not binding but are treated like law, that's the issue here
Earmarks done in an honest way wouldn't be bad. After all, who is going to know better about the needs of a Congressional district than the Congressman that represents that district? And if there is a need that could be best taken care of with federal funding, then it should stand on its own.
The problem is that too many times, Congressmen have added earmarks that are not wise places to spend federal funds. Rather than being a good way to spend money, they're a good way to funnel money to Congressional districts where Congress is trying to reward the Congressman. Earmarks are too often not based upon merit. Rather, they're based upon how much seniority a Representative has on the Appropriations committee and how many favors other Reps are due from the people who write the bills!
Earmarks are bad when you appropriate money to have an Interstate exit built to your front door, like former Speaker, Denny Hasstert tried to have done. It would only serve the good of his family and not the rest of the state.
Can anyone explain what's so bad about "earmarks" by the way? I never understood it, I hear politicians of all stripes, Obama and McCain for example, rail against them, but I can't figure out what is so bad about designating money for certain projects.
Enlighten me, anyone?
Earmarks can be a somewhat troubling proposition, because they can be added in at any time in the legislative process, and oftentimes are used by congresspeople to fund unpopular projects by sticking them in popular bills. They distort and confuse the legislative process, and I've always thought there was something rather undemocratic and Machiavellian about it, especially as it usually results in quid-pro-quo "you put my stuff in and I'll put your stuff in and we'll all vote for it" politics.
Of course, the main job of a congressperson is to hustle money for their state, and earmarks are the main way they go about doing that. I'm from Washington, and Scoop Jackson is permanantly enshrined as a legend here, predominately because of his porkbarreling the hell out of the government FOR Washington. It's why we have all the military presence we do in our state, which led to the deveolpment of Washington as something other than a big collection of farms. I do think it's kind of inherently dishonest, but it's a procedural thing, not an ideological thing to hinge your entire political argument on, the way Republicans have.
Paying for the deficit is really pretty straightforward. Just require that the top 4,173 earners make the "ultimate sacrifice" of sending in $420,000 with their taxes for 2009 to cover the $1.75 trillion.
We could just call them casualties of Bush's war on the economy. Perhaps we could give them pieces of metal to recognize their sacrifice or list their names on a sculpture on the national mall. Perhaps an auto-signed letter of condolence from the President could be arranged.
But I'd prefer us to not even pretend that it's fair. It would really just be the many benefitting from the sacrifice of the few. We have ample precedent for that and fairness never enters the equation.
I like it. About the same number of people gave their lives for Dubya in Iraq, I'd say giving $420k for these fat cats wouldn't even be close to what the dead soldiers did.
We COULD just cut off their heads and take ALL their money, and show them what "class warfare" is really all about.
Well, maybe you could. I'm not crazy, so I couldn't.
At least this manchild is on the right channel now.
Sadly, this is what passes as "news."
The Beavers knowledge base is a km wide and a mm deep which is fine. its his perfect right to be shallow. But what makes him dangerous is that he has access to a microphone and there are people, and I kid you not, who listen to him three hours a day, five days a week, week in and week out. He is perhaps one of the most manipulative yappers on the radio today moving from lets all hold hands and come to Jesus together to advocating revolution and Obama is a Commie and our American way of life is going down the toilet so wake up America!!
The guy is just plain irresponsible and if he didn't have fear to manipulate he'd have nothing.
Glenn - just put on a red rubber nose, big floppy shoes and call it a day. Fox "News" wouldn't mind a bit.
What is too funny is how you think Glenn Beck is irresponsible and yet we have Turbo Tax Tim, too big to fail, the best man for the job have no plan for this economic crisis. So all of our savings keeps slipping away. The market goes down everytime Obama or Turbo Tax Tim open their mouths. If their plans were so great, don't you think the market would respond positively. Oh don't forget Biden and his comment to a small business owner on how this stimulus package would help her business. He told her to call his office, but just examples of how it might help is if she needs a bridge built over a creek to her business so customers can get to her and if she needs help on her energy bills, she can get a smart thermostat. Wow, these guys are smart. But your right, Glenn is the clown.
What does Turbo Tax Tim have to do with The Beaver? Are you saying they are both clowns and/or irresponsible? Or are you saying that The Beaver is a clown only if I call out Turbo Tax Tim as irresponsible? BTW - How can anyone listen to Glenn Beck for three hours a day, five days a week?
PS. our savings have been slipping away for years. Name one thing the the stimulus package that you don't like and please don't mention the mouse business.
in all actuallity i can say that i don't like spending any of that money at all. if you have lets say a 20k dollar bill ran up on one of your credit cards, and you fall into some hard times (not to hard to imagine right) so these hard times take your extra income you've been saving, and then you lose your job. now do you pay what you can and go out and get that new job or maybe even two part time jobs? or do you say oh well i can't do anything anyway, and the jobs out there are just below my personal standards, and start paying your bills with all your other credits cards? think that through for a minute or two. isn't the spending bill the same thing?
I just don't understand how you can call Glenn Beck irresponsible when our government is out of control. I think our government is full of clowns, dems and republicans alike. Glenn Beck is just the messenger. Sorry if you don't like the message. The amount of debt we are accumulating is staggering and I am upset with the Bush adminsistration,but even more so with Obama who is even more out of control with the spending. There is nothing in the stimulus program to help small businesses. We have got to be a producing nation. We cannot continue to be consumers only. There are many things I don't like about the stimulus package...1 billion for the census, Millions for pell grants, Head Start, universal health care. While these are worthwhile causes, they do not belong in a economic stimulus package. I am upset that my children will paying for this crazy spending. We already owe 52 trillion for SS and medicare as of right now, how can we place this extra burden on our children?
I think the two can both be true.
Michael Kinsley who is a smart, thoughtful person recently wrote in the Wapo that money well spent is still money spent and will have to be paid back. So I can agree that Gov't spending is out of control and has been for eight years. Now, I don't know about you but I'm not an economic expert and neither is Glenn Beck. I do know that he has been pushing fear and revolution and any anytime you seriously call our President a Commie, well, I'm sorry but it's irresponsible and adds nothing to the dialogue. Like I said, his knowledge base is wide but shallow and the only message he has is to be very afraid...haven't we done that?
Hasn't he also rewritten the history of FDR? I mean, why bother.
in all honesty glen doesn't "push" revolution or fear, he talks about the "ifs" or "could be" is it for ratings? probably. but at least he is looking at that possibilities. i don't agree with most of what he says but i do give him the credit for where it's do right or wrong hes getting us talking right?
Actually Glenn does not push fear. I am not afraid. I actually learned a lot by listening to him. I just finished the 5000 Year Leap. I learned a lot about how our government was formed and the principles of our Founding Fathers. I have been reading lots of biographies from Thomas Jefferson to Ben Franklin. These books have given me a better understanding of our country and how it should work.
As for Obama being a commie..When I first started hearing about Obama last year some things he said struck me as odd. His upbeat remarks about Marxism. His church was a liberation theology church, which many Marxists believe in. His association with Bill Ayers who despises capitalism. His belief that our constitution is filled with negative liberties. Just look at some of the things he has already done such as dividing the classes in his class warfare, making the businesses the evil oppressor of the poor, doing nothing to stimulate jobs other than short-term government jobs. Creating more universal programs for us to be dependent on, creating a large labor union force, calling out by name and making jokes about anyone who disagrees with him. I just finished a college text book about Marxism, and what he is doing is exactly what I read.
I don't let Glenn Beck or anyone else to tell me what is going on or what to think. I see it with my own eyes. So I am preparing. I am getting my house in order because I do see the end to capitalism. There is no job creation in this stimulation package, just more dependency on the government and a huge debt for my children. Their quality of life will not be as good as mine. If you don't want to see what is happening, then don't open your eyes. If you just want to follow a party that is taking you down a very dark road, fine. I don't want to go with you.
I don't remember the market going up everytime Bush spoke. You seem to think that Obama himself caused this deficit and he alone is causing the stock market to drop. The stock market has been dropping long before Obama came into office.
Absolutely, utterly irresponsible. I'll gladly say that if some rightwing loon kills Obama, I'm coming directly and personally for Glenn Beck. And then Sarah Palin.
doesn't that statement make you sound like a loon as well, saying your gonna go after them, that concerns me somewhat, that you would lash out with violence at the drop of a hat.
Beck is a moron, of course. Snoopy, I commend you for your research. I saved it for future use, with credit to you.
Earmarks are a good thing, but Obama is right to eliminate congressional district appropriations in unrelated bills (earmarks) during the recession. If a district needs something unique, these days the rep should write a bill for consideration. That is prudent governance. Volcanic monitoring, electric vehicles and specific environmental protections aren't earmarks, they are part of what the federal government is uniquely situated to address since, although they may involve a single state ony, they serve the better good of the country. States shouldn't have to spend on this kinds of things, and frankly, haven't the resources anyway.
shouldn't not having the resources be a clue that we might be spending a little to much a little to fast with no oversite or regulation.
The idiocy level is Truly hilarious. And yet, I heard Mark Levin SCREAMING at the top of his lungs (what demographic enjoys that, btw? Can you imagine if a woman did that?) that his book might be a little CEREBRAL for his listeners. LOL!!!
If Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, Joe Scarborough, and other good Republicans can't explain how their fine leadership lead America over the edge, we should hardly care what they think now as we are in free fall!!
They are the very definition of "FAILURE.' So, why do they get to have the forum? Why do we listen to the screw-ups about how to fix their mess??
It's not as though we haven't given them every possible chance to make right, to fix what they broke. They chose to make our situation worse with the expressed expectation that they could lie themselves out responsiblity through sheer repitition on a consolidated corporate media.
When will enough be enough?
Will the next Congression Cyle come with a "equal time" expectation on the public airways?
Will our government dismantle the corporate media that has facilitated the fiasco that is our circumstance today?